Yuppie chow?

Big Organics in Little, Eco-Unfriendly Packages
Not all organics are equal: Look beyond the label and at the packaging
—By Natalie Hudson, Utne.com
June 7, 2007 Issue

The organic bandwagon has become derailed as behemoths like Cargill, Kraft, ConAgra, and Coca-Cola all climb aboard. Critics of corporate organics have bristled that the meaning of organic agriculture -- with its focus on smaller farms and land stewardship -- is lost in a market currently saturated with mass-produced organic foods. And activists are warning that Big Organic's individually wrapped fare shipped around the world is compromising the organic movement's environmental credentials as well. But as long as food contains an organic label, consumers are eating it up.

At the annual Congress of the Humanities and Social Sciences held last week at the University of Saskatchewan, food activist Irena Knezevic presented her paper, "In Labels We Trust: A Critical Look at Consumer Need for Food Labeling." As reported by the Globe and Mail, Knezevic's research describes a consumer-driven trend of "status food" -- or "yuppie chow" -- for those concerned with "health and body image." Corporate organics target those with disposable income while ignoring the social and environmental issues at "the heart of organic agriculture." As an example of the corporate organic's bad environmental record, Knezevic cites the fact that much of Canada's organic food has to make the long, fossil-fueled trek from California. When factoring in the many miles that the often individually wrapped packages travel, the "environmental consequences" are "comparable to those of conventional food production."

Covering the same conference, Saskatoon's StarPhoenix, underlines Knezevic's warning to consumers to not be fooled by organic labels that give "the impression that all organic foods are equally good choices." Consumers, says Knezevic, should have access to information about whether their food was locally produced and whether farmers got a fair price for it, the Globe and Mail reports.

To help navigate the dubious web of organic labels, check out several diagrams created by Dr. Philip H. Howard, an assistant professor at Michigan State University. His diagrams outline the structure of the organic industry and give new meaning to the phrase "buyers beware," which should perhaps be amended to: conscious consumers beware.

Go there >> Has Big Business Turned Organics into "Yuppy Chow"?

Go there, too >> Corporations Jump on Organic Wagon

Liquid coal

The idea of turning coal into liquid to fill our gas tanks should just be a bad joke. But because the coal industry pours millions into lobbying Congress every year, this joke could turn into a real nightmare.

The senate is about to vote on a big bill dealing with energy and the climate crisis. Massive subsidies for coal were defeated in committee. But we're not out of the woods yet, since one of the coal-friendly senators could sneak them back in again as an amendment just before the final vote.

Liquid coal is a giant step backward in our fight against global warming—it produces twice as many greenhouse gases as conventional gasoline. Proposals to capture that pollution before it adds to global warming are still a pipe dream.

We have to reduce the greenhouse gases already in our air to stave off the worst effects of climate change—disease, drought, rising seas—so you'd think a giant program to make liquid coal a cornerstone of our economy would be too outrageous to consider. But continued pressure from the coal industry means key legislators introduce it over and over again.

Even the Roanoke Times, in the heart of coal country, condemned government promotion of liquid coal:

Coal-to-liquid technology is expensive, harmful to the environment and inefficient. The federal government should take no part in subsidizing it ... Liquefying coal is not the answer to either energy independence or a cleaner environment.
Some senators are standing strong against this false promise—Jon Tester from coal-rich Montana has said there should be no liquid coal without proven ways to capture the greenhouse gases.

But others are risking our future with dirty energy bills instead of supporting clean and affordable alternatives—like solar and wind.

Read more about it:
"Lawmakers Push for Big Subsidies for Coal Process," New York Times, May 29, 2007

"Wrong path toward energy independence," Denver Post, June 9, 2007

"Billion Dollar Boondoggle," Roanoke Times, June 5 2007

"Tester: Offer incentives for carbon capture," Missoulian, June 2, 2007

Where’s EuroArnold?

As long as President Bush does not give German Chancellor Angela Merkel another one of those surprise neck rubs, the Group of 8 meetings should settle into cautious choreography on how to bring down the planet’s fever and reduce global inequities. But one other leader from the world’s major industrial powers should have been invited to this week’s summit at Heiligendamm — the Governator, Arnold Schwarzenegger of California.

While Mr. Bush angered his fellow world leaders this week with yet another foot-dragging proposal on climate change, the governor has been working his own brand of international diplomacy on the issue and leading by example. ... Only a handful of states use less energy, per capita, than California. No state has committed to such a broad change in lifestyle and environment. And no state has tried so consistently — even having to defy the federal government — to get to where the world wants to be on slowing climate change. California is what the rest of the nation could have been had not Vice President Cheney disparaged conservation as a wimp issue for the virtuous, choosing to perforate more public land in a last-gasp stumble for fossil fuels.

Not all of this is Arnold’s doing. An audacious plan to reduce auto emissions was enacted a year before he won the governor’s race in 2003. But despite enormous pressure from automakers, the governor has fully backed the measure and threatened to sue the federal government for the exemption California needs to move ahead. He went a step further when he signed a law committing California to reducing its greenhouse gas emissions by 25 percent by 2020. And last week he was in Canada, making climate goal agreements with two provinces while blasting his own government for failing to show any leadership.

Home to one in eight Americans, with an economy bigger than Canada, California has global swagger — and the governor is starting to use it. The state is further along than any other country on this issue. “The power influence we have is the equivalent of a nation, or even a continent,” Mr. Schwarzenegger said last week in British Columbia. ... Check into any college lab in California, from the gilded interiors of Stanford to the mobile-home campuses in Riverside County, and you find a frenzy of experiments on how to light, heat, cool and transport ourselves without wrecking the globe. ... But to some fellow Republicans, he is a traitor ... Rush Limbaugh called him “a sellout.” But it took a former Mr. Universe to do what no significant Republican had yet to do: he said Mr. Limbaugh was “irrelevant.”

Mr. Schwarzenegger, the policeman’s son from a small town in Austria, has morphed into his logical political fit: EuroArnold, at home in the pragmatic politics of Tony Blair or Mrs. Merkel. It would have been intriguing to have him in Germany this week, showing the rest of the world that not all Americans are in the last century on the big issues of the day. And, of course, he’s one of the few Americans who’s used to wearing a Speedo without blushing.

"Where's EuroArnold" is excerpted from a New York Times article by Timothy Egan, a former Seattle correspondent for the NYT and author of “The Worst Hard Time.”

*P*E*A*C*E*

Two green stories

Two green stories: The title on the first story is enough to make me laugh. And I'm not the only one who thinks it's ridiculous.



Bush Calls for Global Emissions Goals
By TERENCE HUNT, AP White House Correspondent
May 31, 2007

WASHINGTON - President Bush, seeking to blunt international criticism of the U.S. record on climate change, on Thursday urged 15 major nations to agree by the end of next year on a global emissions goal for reducing greenhouse gases.

Bush called for the first in a series of meetings to begin this fall, bringing together countries identified as major emitters of greenhouse gases blamed for global warming. The list would include the United States, China, India and major European countries.

The president outlined his proposal in a speech ahead of next week's summit in Germany of leading industrialized nations, where global warming is to be a major topic and Bush will be on the spot.

The United States has refused to ratify the landmark 1997 Kyoto Protocol requiring industrialized countries to reduce greenhouse gases to 1990 levels by 2012. Developing countries, including China and India, were exempted from that first round of cuts. Bush rejected the Kyoto approach, as well as the latest German proposal for what happens after 2012.

"The United States takes this issue seriously," Bush said. "The new initiative I'm outlining today will contribute to the important dialogue that will take place in Germany next week."

Along with his call for a global emissions goal, Bush urged other nations to eliminate tariffs on clean energy technologies.

Germany, which holds the European Union and Group of Eight presidencies, is proposing a so-called "2-degree" target, whereby global temperatures would be allowed to increase no more than 2 degrees Celsius _ the equivalent of 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit _ before being brought back down. Practically, experts have said that means a global reduction in emissions of 50 percent below 1990 levels by 2050.

Instead, Bush called for nations to hold a series of meetings, beginning this fall, to set a global emissions goal. Each nation then would have to decide on how to achieve the goal, White House officials said.

"The United States will work with other nations to establish a new framework for greenhouse gas emissions for when the Kyoto Protocol expires in 2012," the president said.

"So my proposal is this: By the end of next year, America and other nations will set a long-term global goal for reducing greenhouse gases. To develop this goal, the United States will convene a series of meetings of nations that produce the most greenhouse gasses, including nations with rapidly growing economies like India and China.

"Each country would establish midterm management targets and programs that reflect their own mix of energy sources and future energy needs," he said. "In the course of the next 18 months, our nations will bring together industry leaders from different sectors of our economies, such as power generation, and alternative fuels and transportation."

Bush's critics were quick to respond, even before the president's speech had concluded.

Daniel J. Weiss, climate strategy director for the liberal Center for American Progress, said the Bush administration has a "do-nothing" policy on global warming despite U.S. allies' best efforts to spur U.S. reductions.

"Our allies' pleas for action add to the voices of many big corporations such as Dow, Shell, General Electric, and General Motors," Weiss said. "These and other Fortune 500 companies endorsed a 60 percent to 80 percent reduction in global warming pollution by 2050, the level scientists indicate that we must reach to stave off the worst impacts. Unfortunately, these appeals from his foreign and corporate allies continue to fall on President Bush's deaf ears."

The U.S. last year actually experienced a drop in emissions of carbon dioxide, the heat-trapping gas most blamed for global warming. The 1.3 percent decline from 2005, the first drop in 11 years, was due to a mild winter followed by a cool summer.

Carbon dioxide is produced from burning fossil fuels, including natural gas and coal, which are used widely to produce electricity to heat homes in winter and run air conditioners in summer.

While Bush announced his new proposal, the administration registered its opposition to a number of approaches to combat global warming. Specifically, the White House said it does not support a global carbon-trading program allowing countries to buy and sell carbon credits to meet limits on carbon dioxide levels. The White House also expressed opposition to energy efficiency targets advocated by the EU, arguing that a standard applicable in one country does not fit another.

Copyright 2007 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

“The president is warming up to throw his opening pitch while business, states and the rest of the world are already at the top of the ninth inning,” said NRDC Climate Center Policy Director and former climate treaty negotiator David Doniger. “It is nothing less than embarrassing that three of the worlds biggest oil companies are calling for tougher measure than the White House.” The NRDC (Natural Resources Defense Council) is an environmental advocacy group.

Greenhouse-gas limits gain steam in states
By Eric Kelderman, Stateline.org Staff Writer
Tuesday, May 01, 2007

The White House and Congress are miles apart over proposals to stop global warming, but the debate is over in many states that are moving aggressively to curb greenhouse gases blamed for climate change.

Nearly half of the states are pursuing at least one of three main strategies to curb the burning of fossil fuels, a chief source of gases linked to global warming: cleaning up smokestacks, reducing auto exhaust or reaping more power from the sun and wind.

Last month, the Washington Legislature passed a measure similar to a landmark 2006 California law to cut greenhouse-gas emissions from power plants and other industries to 1990 levels by 2020. Minnesota and New Hampshire this year set the highest goals for producing environment-friendly electricity from renewable sources such as wind and solar energy — 25 percent by 2025. And Maryland just became the 12th state to mandate California’s stringent auto emissions standards.

Governors and state legislators are driven not just by green goals but also by a large dose of pragmatism. What’s good for the environment also can be good for a state’s economy, such as championing alternative energy to create jobs, protecting natural resources that would be harmed by global warming and keeping a lid on rising fuel prices that hit consumers and businesses alike.

"I don't just want wind farms. I want companies that build turbines. I want hybrid-vehicle companies to consult us on conservation strategies. I want companies that design solar panels,” Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick (D) told the Apollo Alliance, a coalition of labor and renewable-energy advocates promoting clean power as an economic engine.

Julia Bovey, a spokeswoman for the Natural Resources Defense Council environmental advocacy group, said states clearly are leading the federal government on the issue of global warming. But the scope of the problem requires a national federal policy not a patchwork of varying state laws, she said.

The chief challenge is how to curb carbon dioxide, the same gas exhaled by humans but released into the atmosphere in huge amounts with the burning of fossil fuels, such as coal, oil and gasoline. Scientists have concluded that steep increases in fossil-fuel burning have warmed the Earth’s atmosphere, in what is called a greenhouse effect, with the potential to change the planet’s climate.

California is at the cutting edge with its requirement to cut carbon-dioxide emissions from power plants and other industrial sources 25 percent over the next 13 years. The California law also has implications beyond its borders because utilities will be required to purchase power from out-of-state plants that meet the emissions goals. Washington state is poised to follow suit with a bill passed in April.

On both coasts, states also are joining in regional “cap-and-trade” agreements that cap the amount of greenhouse gases that power plants can produce and allow polluters to buy and sell credits earned through extra reductions, creating economic incentives to cut emissions.

On the East Coast, Massachusetts and Rhode Island this year joined eight other states in a plan to cut carbon-dioxide emissions 10 percent by 2019.

In February, Arizona, New Mexico and Oregon agreed to join California and Washington state in a "cap-and-trade" system that will develop its emissions goals by August 2007.

Fears of global warming also have rejuvenated interest in renewable energy requirements that states began imposing more a decade ago to cut dependence on imported oil and gas and to reduce polluting coal-plant emissions. Citing global warming, Minnesota and New Hampshire this year joined 20 states in requiring utilities to get a percentage of their electricity from environment-friendly sources such as wind and solar power. Colorado and New Mexico this year have doubled previous requirements of clean electricity to 20 percent by 2020.

Nationwide, the renewable requirements will reduce carbon-dioxide emissions an estimated 108 million metric tons by 2020 — equivalent to removing nearly 18 million cars from the nation's roads, according to the nonprofit Union of Concerned Scientists, a nonprofit environmental think-tank.

California in 2002 was the first to go after auto emissions to curtail greenhouses gases. Now 11 other states have agreed to copy the Golden State’s requirement that cars curb carbon-dioxide emissions 30 percent by the 2016 model year.

While a group of automakers is challenging California's standards in three federal district courts, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 5-4 on April 3 that the Environmental Protection Agency was wrong to refuse to regulate carbon dioxide as an air pollutant. That decision improves chances that the EPA will approve the law in California, the only state allowed to write stricter car-emission standards than the federal government.

Governors are aiming to improve the business climate in their states as well as the earth's atmosphere, said Michael Fedor, a spokesman for an alliance of wind and solar advocates as well as ranching, farming and forestry associations. Fedor's organization, the "25 X 25" group, is promoting the goal that 25 percent of the nation’s energy needs will be met by renewable energy by 2025.

In fact, there are big bucks to be made in the new energy economy. Wind energy companies spent $4 billion in 2006 as the nation's installed wind-generation capacity grew 27 percent, according to the American Wind Energy Association. Next year, wind energy is expected to grow 26 percent, according to the association.

State actions now are building pressure on the new Democratic majority in Congress to take action against global warming. At least six bills for reducing carbon-dioxide emissions have been introduced in the U.S. Senate this year, and House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman, U.S. Rep. John Dingell (D) of Michigan, has held a dozen hearings on the prospect of climate-change legislation.

While President Bush has acknowledged the "serious problem of global-climate change,” he has questioned how much human activity has contributed to the earth's rising temperature and so far has rejected government mandates to cut carbon dioxide.

Several governors, on the other hand, including some of Bush's fellow Republicans, not only acknowledge the potential catastrophic effects of global warming but also are leading advocates for government intervention. At least 16 governors this year proposed efforts to stanch climate change in their state of the state addresses, according to the National Governors Association.

That includes California's Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger (R), who banked his successful 2006 re-election in part on his actions to curb carbon-dioxide emissions. Even South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford (R), a Southern conservative, launched a task force in February to determine not whether global warming exists, but how it how will impact the state and what steps could be taken to mitigate the problem. More than a dozen other states, from Alaska to Florida, have similar advisory groups.